The problem in translating the noble Quran

http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=733

In the name of GOD, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Once my dear brother, Fawzi Farraj, in one of his comments said that
the translation will make the meaning weaker and sometimes it changes it no
matter how much the translator was faithful and efficient.

The Bible is a good example, as Jesus (PBUH) used to speak in

Aramaic with the people of Israel but the first known translation of the Bible
was in Greek. Hence no matter how much the Greek translators of the Bible
were faithful, the meaning should have been interpreted in wrong manner in
many aspects. Also that was followed by different translations which appeared
with man-made modifications on it. All of that happened with the
disappearance of the original Aramaic Bible so we can’t determine the
efficiency of the translations (meaning that the original scripture of the Bible
was lost).

For the noble Quran the case is different as the Arabic language ,in
which the Quran was sent down to Mohammed (PBUH), still exists and I will not
be exaggerating if I say that the Quran itself helped the Arabic language to
survive against the call for its division into different (public) languages
(meaning that we will see Shami language, Egyptian language, Khaliji (Gulf)
language, Moroccan language…….etc and the original Arabic language will be
lost). Hence the believers’ belief has increased more and more on the fact
that the promise of GOD is the truth:

((WE have sent down the message and WE are protecting it (from
corruption) )) The noble Quran, Chapter 15, Verse 9

1
All that is supported by the existence of the first written Quran till now. Hence
the Quran survived against the attempts to remove some verses from it or to
remove some chapters and keep some others………………..etc and I am sure
that these attempts are well known to everyone.

As for the translation of the Quran, there is no fear because the

original scripture of the Quran exists (and will always exist) but the translation
of the Quran can not be considered as the Quran itself. It is better to call it the
interpretation of the Quran from the translator’s point of view. Hence the
translator is expected to commit mistakes whether he had a good intention or
(a bad intention) as the Quran has the following specifications:

((And no one knows its interpretation other than GOD)) The noble
Quran, Chapter 3, Verse 7

((for each revealed thing (in the Quran) there is a time for its
fulfillment and you will come to know (when that time comes).)) The
noble Quran, Chapter 6, Verse 67

One of the translations of the noble Quran which I want to discuss in

this article is the English translation of the noble Quran by Mohammed M.
Pickthall. Using that translation, the enemies of the Quran accuse us of
following a book which is violent and self-contradicting. I don’t want to
dispraise Mohammed M. Pickthall as he surely had a good intention and he will
have a reward (by the will of GOD) for all the effort he made for translating the
Quran but his translation should be discussed.

From my point of view, I think that the way he translated the

Repentance chapter gave an impression that it is a very violent chapter which
is permitting Muslims to be violent for all the times and places. For example
2
the verse 5 in the Repentance chapter (in Arabic) says:

((5 ‫صٍد(( التوبة الية‬

َ ‫صُروُهْم َواْقعُُدوْا َلُهمْ ُكّل َمْر‬
ُ ‫ح‬
ْ ‫خُذوُهْم َوا‬
ُ ‫جدّتُموُهْم َو‬
َ ‫ث َو‬
ُ ‫حْي‬
َ ‫ن‬
َ ‫شِرِكي‬
ْ ‫َفاْقُتُلوْا اْلُم‬

((faktoloo almoshrikeena haitho wagattomohom wa khothohom wa

ehsoroohom wa ake’do lahom kolla marsad)) The repentance, Verse 5

You can refer the article named (The Repentance chapter) to know the reason
of these verses and what is meant from them. Anyways the translation of
Mohammed M. Pickthall was as follows:

((slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive),
and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush)) Quran 9:5
Pickthall

This did not specify the Meccian soldiers. It is easily known (to us) that the
idolaters meant in this verse are the Meccian soldiers and not all idolaters for
all times, but this fact will not be known for a (non- Muslim) who is reading the
translation of the Quran for the first time. So from my point of view it was
better to be translated as follows:

((slay the pagan Meccian soldiers wherever you find them, take them
captives, besiege them and prepare for them each ambush)) The
noble Quran, Chapter 9, Verse 5

So the one who is quoting this verse from the translation of the Quran will
understand that it a story and not an order for all the times and places.
Another problem in Pickthall’s translation of the Quran is his translation of the
following noble verse:

3
))61 ‫جعل الرض قرارا (( النمل الية‬

((Ga’l Al-arda karara)) The ants, Verse 61

Hetranslated it as follows:

((Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode)) Quran 27:61
Pickthall

So the enemies of the Quran accused us on believing a book that says that
the earth is fixed and does not move. From my point of view the noble verse
should be translated as follows:

((HE made the earth a resting-place)) The noble Quran, Chapter 27,
Verse 61

Another problem was his translation of the story of Zul-Qarnain (the man with
two Horns). He translated it in a way that gives an impression that the Quran
says that the earth is flat and that Zul-Qarnain reached the extreme west of
earth. It also gives an impression that the Quran says that the sun-setting
place in the universe is a hot water!!!!!!

There are so many other examples, but it will be so long to mention all of it.

Suggestion:-

Why don’t we put a section in (Ahl-Alquran) website for reading the

noble Quran? We can also put an English translation of the Quran which
reflects the views of the people of the Quran. We can consider that as a big
project which requires the participation of a lot of brothers and sisters from
this website to discuss the meaning of some words and verses. What do you

4
 think as I am ready to participate in the translation of the Quran (by the help of
GOD almighty)?

Such a project will make the participants read further and further and more
thoroughly in the Quran.
The views and opinions of authors whose articles and comments are posted on this site do not necessarily
reflect the views of IQC.

ments ( 2 )

Comment By Hossam Mansour - 2006-12-25

Very important point

Here is the dilemma with this problem:

Translation is finding the equation between the wording and the meaning. So it is not just to find the
accurate meaning that is identical to the original language in strength, beauty, and depth, but it is also to
word this meaning in the closest lingual form in the new language. The problem with translating the
Quraan then can be divided into translating the lingual form and the meaning. The form is doable, I think.
The meaning is the biggest problem because the Quraan is not just another book; it is a book that is always
understood differently by the readers. The Differences we talk about here are huge, that is the reason why
we, the Quranic, exist. The problem is which vision of the Quraan to translate? The translation here gets
more subjective than any where else. Shadi suggests it should be called an explanation not a translation. I
think it should be called a vision of the Quaran because the Quraan does not need explantion. So instead of
translating the Quraan, we will word how we see the Quraan in English. We have to clearly say that this is
just our vision of Islam, because although we believe that our vision is right, we can not say that this is the
authentic vision of Islam

Comment By Shadi EL-Farran - 2006-12-26

Translating The Untranslatable

http://www.4islam.com/translations.shtml

5
 Translations of the Qur'an are regarded as interpretations in
languages other than Arabic. Eventhough translating the
Qur'an has been a difficult concept, both theologically and
linguistically, The Qur'an has been translated into most
languages. In Islam, The Qur'an is a revelation specifically in
Arabic, and so it should only be recited in the Arabic
language. Translations into other languages are the work of humans and so no
longer possess the uniquely sacred character of the Arabic original. Since
these translations subtly change the meaning, they are often called
"interpretations." For instance, Pickthall called his translation The Meaning of
the Glorious Koran rather than simply The Koran.

Please read more on the topic below:

Translating the Untranslatable: A Survey of English Translations of

the Qur'an
by A.R. Kidwai

Despite the historical fact that the early Muslim community's stand on the
translation of the Arabic text of the Quran was ambivalent, as indeed, the
general Muslim attitude remains so to this day, the act of translation may be
logically viewed as a natural part of the Muslim exegetical effort. However,
whereas the idea of interpreting the Quran has not been so controversial, the
emotional motives behind rendering the Quranic text into languages other
than Arabic have always been looked upon with suspicion.

This is obvious as the need for translating the Quran arose in those historic
circumstances when a large number of non-Arabic speaking people had
embraced Islam, and giving new linguistic orientations to the contents of the
revelation - as, for instance, happened in the case of the 'New Testament' -
6
could have led to unforeseeable, and undesirable, developments within the
body of the Islamic religion itself. (For a brief, though highly useful, survey of
the Muslim attitudes towards the permissibility of translating the text of the
revelation to non-Arabic tongues, see M. Ayoub, 'Translating the Meaning of
the Quran: Traditional Opinions and Modern Debates', in Afkar Inquiry, Vol. 3,
No. 5 (Ramadan 1406/May 1986), pp.34 9).

The Muslim need for translating the Quran into English arose mainly out of the
desire to combat the missionary effort. Following a long polemical tradition,
part of whose goal was also the production of a - usually erroneous and
confounding - European version of the Muslim scripture, Christian missionaries
started their offensive against a politically humiliated Islam in the eighteenth
century by advancing their own translations of the Quran.

Obviously, Muslims could not allow the missionary effort - invariably

confounding the authenticity of the text with a hostile commentary of its own -
to go unopposed and unchecked. Hence, the Muslim decision to present a
faithful translation of the Quranic text as well as an authentic summary of its
teaching to the European world. Later, the Muslim translations were meant to
serve even those Muslims whose only access to the Quranic revelation was
through the medium of the European languages. Naturally, English was
deemed the most important language for the Muslim purpose, not least
because of the existence of the British Empire which after the Ottomans had
the largest number of Muslim subjects.

The same rationale, however, applies to sectarian movements within Islam or

even to renegade groups outside the fold of Islam, such as the Qadiyanis.
Their considerable translational activities are motivated by the urge to
proclaim their ideological uniqueness.

7
Although there is a spate of volumes on the multi-faceted dimensions of the
Quran, no substantial work has so far been done to critically examine the mass
of existing English translations of the Quran.

Even bibliographical material on this subject was quite scant before the fairly
recent appearance of World Bibliography of the Translations of the Meanings
of the Holy Quran (Istanbul, OIC Research Centre, 1986), which provides
authoritative publication details of the translations of the Quran in sixty-five
languages.

Some highly useful work in this field had been done earlier by Dr. Hamidullah
of Paris. Appended to the Cambridge History of Arabic Literature Volume 1,
Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period (Cambridge university
Press, 1983) is a bibliography of the Quran translations into European
languages, prepared by J.D. Pearson, as is the latter's article in the
Encyclopaedia of Islam. It is, however, of not much use to the Muslim.

Since none of the above-mentioned works is annotated, the reader gets no

idea about the translator's mental make-up, his dogmatic presuppositions and
his approach to the Quran as well as the quality of the translation.

Similarly the small chapter entitled 'The Qur'an and Occidental Scholarship' in
Bell and Watt's Introduction to the Qur'an (Edinburgh, 1970, pp. 173-86),
although useful in providing background information to Orientalists' efforts in
Quranic studies, and translations, more or less for the same reasons, is of little
value to general Muslim readers. Thus, studies which focus on those aspects of
each translation of the Quran are urgently needed lest Western scholars
misguide the unsuspecting non-Arabic speaking readers of the Quran. An effort
has been made in this survey to bring out the hallmarks and shortcomings of
the major complete translations of the Quran.
8
The early English translations of the Quran by Muslims stemmed mainly from
the pious enthusiasm on their part to refute the allegations leveled by the
Christian missionaries against Islam in general and the Quran in particular.

Illustrative of this trend are the following translations:

(i) Mohammad Abdul Hakim Khan, The Holy Qur'an:'with short notes based on
the Holy Qur'an or the authentic traditions of the Prophet, or and New
Testaments or scientific truth. All fictitious romance, questionable history and
disputed theories have been carefully avoided' (Patiala, 1905);

(ii) Hairat Dehlawi, The Koran Prepared, by various Oriental learned scholars
and edited by Mirza Hairat Dehlawi. Intended as 'a complete and exhaustive
reply to the manifold criticisms of the Koran by various Christian authors such
as Drs. Sale, Rodwell, Palmer and Sir W. Muir' (Delhi, 1912); and

(iii) Mirzal Abu'l Fadl, Qur'an, Arabic Text and English Translation Arranged
Chronologically with an Abstract (Allahabad, 1912).

Since none of these early translations was by a reputed Islamic scholar, both
the quality of the translation and level of scholarship are not very high and
these works are of mere historical interest.

Later works, however, reflect a more mature and scholarly effort.

Muhammad Marmaduke William Pickthall, an English man of letters who

embraced Islam, holds the distinction of bringing out a first-rate rendering of
the Qur'an in English, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an (London, 1930).

It keeps scrupulously close to the original in elegant, though now somewhat

archaic, English. However, although it is one of the most widely used English

9
translations, it provides scant explanatory notes and background information.
This obviously restricts its usefulness for an uninitiated reader of the Qur'an.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali's The Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary (Lahore,
1934 37), perhaps the most popular translation, stands as another major
achievement in this field. A civil servant by vocation, Yusuf Ali was not a
scholar in the classical Muslim tradition. Small wonder, then, that some of his
copious notes, particularly on hell and heaven, angels, jinn and polygamy, etc.
are informed with the pseudo-rationalist spirit of his times, as for instance in
the works of S. Ahmad and S. Ameer Ali.

His overemphasis on things spiritual also distorts the Qur'anic worldview.

Against this is the fact that Yusuf Ali doubtless was one of the few Muslims who
enjoyed an excellent command over the English language. It is fully reflected
in his translation. Though his is more of a paraphrase than a literal translation,
yet it faithfully represents the sense of the original.

Abdul Majid Daryabadi's The Holy Qur'an: with English Translation and
Commentary (Lahore, 1941 - 57) is, however, fully cognate with the traditional
Muslim viewpoint.

Like PIckthall's earlier attempt, it is a faithful rendering, supplemented with

useful notes on historical, geographical and eschatological issues, particularly
the illuminating discussions on comparative religion. Though the notes are not
always very exhaustive, they help to dispel the doubts in the minds of
Westernized readers. However, it too contains inadequate background
information about the Suras (chapters of the Quran) and some of his notes
need updating.

10
The Meaning of the Qur'an (Lahore, 1967), the English version of Sayyid Abul
A'la Mawdud'i's magnum opus, the Urdu Tafhim al-Quran is an interpretative
rendering of the Qur'an which remarkably succeeds in recapturing some of the
majesty of the original.

Since Mawdudi, a great thinker, enjoyed rare mastery over both classical and
modern scholarship, his work helps one develop an understanding of the
Qur'an as a source of guidance. Apart from setting the verses/Suras in the
circumstances of its time, the author constantly relates, though exhaustive
notes, the universal message of the Qur'an to his own time and its specific
problems. His logical line of argument, generous sensibility, judicious use of
classical Muslim scholarship and practical solutions to the problems of the day
combine to show Islam as a complete way of life and as the Right Path for the
whole of mankind. Since the translation of this invaluable work done by
Muhammad Akbar is pitiably poor and uninspiring, the much-needed new
English translation of the entire work is in progress under the auspices of the
Islamic Foundation, Leicester.

The Message of the Quran by Muhammad Asad (Gibraltar, 1980) represents a

notable addition to the body of English translations couched in chaste English.
This work is nonetheless vitiated by deviation from the viewpoint of the Muslim
orthodoxy on many counts. Averse to take some Qur'anic statements literally,
Asad denies the occurrence of such events as the throwing of Abraham into
the fire, Jesus speaking in the cradle, etc. He also regards Luqman, Khizr and
Zulqarnain as 'mythical figures' and holds unorthodox views on the abrogation
of verses. These blemishes apart, this highly readable translation contains
useful, though sometimes unreliable background information about the
Qur'anic Suras and even provides exhaustive notes on various Qur'anic
themes.
11
The fairly recent The Qur'an: The First American Version (Vermont, 1985) by
another native Muslim speaker of English, T.B. Irving, marks the appearance of
the latest major English translation. Apart from the obnoxious title, the work is
bereft of textual and explanatory notes.

Using his own arbitrary judgment, Irving has assigned themes to each Qur'anic
Ruku' (section). Although modern and forceful English has been used, it is not
altogether free of instances of mistranslation and loose expressions. With
American readers in mind, particularly the youth, Irving has employed many
American English idioms, which, in places, are not befitting of the dignity of
the Qur'anic diction and style.

In addition to the above, there are also a number of other English translations
by Muslims, which, however, do not rank as significant ventures in this field.

They may be listed as:

1. Al-Hajj Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar, Translation of the Holy Qur'an (Singapore,

1920)
2. Ali Ahmad Khan Jullundri, Translation of the Glorious Holy Qur'an with
commentary (Lahore, 1962)
3. Abdur Rahman Tariq and Ziauddin Gilani, The Holy Qur'an Rendered into
English (Lahore, 1966)
4. Syed Abdul Latif, Al-Qur'an: Rendered into English (Hyderabad, 1969)
5. Hashim Amir Ali, The Message of the Qur'an Presented in Perspective
(Tokyo, 1974)
6. Taqui al-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Explanatory English
Translation of the Holy Qur'an: A Summarized Version of Ibn Kathir
Supplemented by At-Tabari with Comments from Sahih al-Bukhari (Chicago,
1977)
12
7. Muhammad Ahmad Mofassir, The Koran: The First Tafsir in English (London,
1979)
8. Mahmud Y. Zayid, The Qur'an: An English Translation of the Meaning of the
Qur'an (checked and revised in collaboration with a committee of Muslim
scholars) (Beirut, 1980)
9. S.M. Sarwar, The Holy Qur'an: Arab Text and English Translation (Elmhurst,
1981)
10. Ahmed Ali, Al-Qur'an: A Contemporary Translation (Karachi, 1984).

(In view of the blasphemous statements contained in Rashad Khalifa's The

Qur'an: The Final Scripture (Authorized English Version) (Tucson, 1978), it has
not been included in the translations by Muslims).

Even amongst the Muslim translations, some are representative of the strong
sectarian biases of their translators.

For example, the Shia doctrines are fully reflected in accompanying

commentaries of the following books: S.V. Mir Ahmad Ali, The Holy Qur'an with
English Translation and Commentary, according to the version of the Holy
Ahlul Bait includes 'special notes from Hujjatul Islam Ayatullah Haji Mirza Mahdi
Pooya Yazdi on the philosophical aspects of the verses' (Karachi, 1964); M.H.
Shakir, Holy Qur'an (New York, 1982); Syed Muhammad Hussain at-Tabatabai,
al-Mizan: An Exegesis of the Qur'an, translated from Persian into English by
Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi (Tehran, 198~). So far five volumes of this work
have been published.

Illustrative of the Barelvi sectarian stance is Holy Qur'an, the English version of
Ahmad Raza Khan Brailai's Urdu translation, by Hanif Akhtar Fatmi (Lahore,
n.d.).

13
As pointed out earlier, the Qadiyanis, though having abandoned Islam, have
been actively engaged in translating the Qur'an, Apart from English, their
translations are available in several European and African languages.

Muhammad Ali's The Holy Qur'an: English Translation (Lahore, 1917) marks
the beginning of this effort. This Qadiyani translator is guilty of misinterpreting
several Qur'anic verses, particularly those related to the Promised Messiah, his
miracles and the Qur'anic angelology.

Similar distortions mar another Qadiyani translation by Sher Ali, The Holy
Qur'an: Arabic Text with English Translation (Rabwah, 1955).Published under
the auspices of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, second successor of the
"Promised Messiah" and head of the Ahmadiyyas, this oft-reprinted work
represents the official Qadiyani version of the Qur'an. Unapologizingly, Sher
Sher Ali refers to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the "Promised Messiah" and
mistranslates and misinterprets a number of Qur'anic verses.

Zafarullah Khan's The Qur'an: Arabic Text and English Translation (London,
1970) ranks as another notable Qadiyani venture in this field. Like other
Qadiyanis, Zafarullah too twists the Qur'anic verses to opine that the door of
prophethood was not closed with the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings be upon him). The obtrusion of similar obnoxious views upon the
Qur'anic text is found in the following Qadiyani translations, too:

(i) Kamaluddin and Nazir Ahmad, A Running Commentary of the Holy Qur'an
(London, 1948)
(ii) Salahuddin Peer, The Wonderful Koran (Lahore, 1960)
(iii) Malik Ghulam Farid, The Holy Qur'an (Rabwah, 1962)
(iv) Khadim Rahman Nuri, The Running Commentary of the Holy Qur'an with

14
under-bracket comments (Shillong, 1964)
(v) Firozuddin Ruhi, The Qur'an (Karachi, 1965)

Apart from the Qadiyanis, Christian missionaries have been the most active
non-Muslim translators of the Qur'an. As already noted, origins of this
inglorious tradition may be traced back to the anti-Islamic motives of the
missionaries.

Small wonder, then that these ventures are far from being a just translation,
replete as they are with frequent transpositions, omissions, unaccountable
liberties and unpardonable faults.

A very crude specimen of the Orientalist-missionary approach to the Qur'an is

found in Alexander Ross's The Alcoran of Mahomet translated out of Arabique
into French, by the Sieur Du Ryer...And newly Englished, for the satisfaction for
all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities (London, 1649).

In translating the Qur'an, the intention of Ross, a chaplain of King Charles I,

was: 'I thought good to bring it to their colours, that so viewing thine enemies
in their full body, thou must the better prepare to encounter...his Alcoran.'

In the same rabidly anti-Islamic vein are the two appendices in the work
entitled as (a) 'A Needful Caveat or Admonition, for them who desire to know
what use may be made of or if there be danger in reading the Alcoran' (pp.
406 20) and 'The Life and Death of Mahomet: the Prophet of the Turks and
author of the Alcoran' (pp. 395-405).

George Sale, a lawyer brought out his The Koran, commonly called The Al
Koran of Mohammed (London, 1734), which has been the most popular English
translation. Sale's exhaustive 'Preliminary Discourse', dealing mainly with Sira
and the Qur'an, betrays his deep hostility towards Islam and his missionary
15
intent in that he suggests the rules to be observed for 'the conversion of
Mohammedans' (q.v.).

As to the translation itself, it abounds in numerous instances of omission,

distortion and interpolations.

Dissatisfied with Sale's work, J.M. Rodwell, Rector of St. Ethelberga, London,
produced his translation entitled The Koran (London, 1861). Apart from hurling
all sorts of wild and nasty allegations against the Prophet and the Qur'an in the
Preface, Rodwell is guilty of having invented the so-called chronological Sura
order of the Qur'an. Nor is his translation free from grave mistakes of
translation and his own fanciful interpretations in the notes.

E.H. Palmer, a Cambridge scholar, was entrusted with the preparation of a new
translation of the Qur'an for Max Muller's Sacred Books of the East series.
Accordingly, his translation, The Qur'an, appeared in London in 1880. As to the
worth of Palmer's translation, reference may be made to A. R. Nykl's article,
'Notes on E.H. Palmer's The Qur'an', published in the Journal of the American
Oriental Society, 56 (1936) pp. 77-84 in which no less than 65 instances of
omission and mistranslation in Palmer's work have been pointed out.

Richard Bell, Reader of Arabic, University of Edinburgh, and an acknowledged

Orientalist produced a translation of the Qur'an with special reference to its
Sura order, as is evident from the title of his work, The Qur'an translated with a
critical rearrangement of the Surahs (Edinburgh, 1937-39). In addition to
describing the Prophet as the author of the Qur'an, Bell also believes that the
Qur'an in its present form was 'actually written by Muhammad himself' (p. vi).
In rearranging the Sura order of the Qur'an, Bell, in fact, makes a thorough
mess of the traditional arrangement and tries to point out 'alterations
substitutions and derangements in the text.
16
A.J. Arberry, a renowned Orientalist and Professor of Arabic at the Universities
of London and Cambridge, has been, so far, the latest non-Muslim translator of
the Qur'an.

Arberry's The Koran Interpreted (London, 1957) no doubt stands out above the
other English renderings by non-Muslims in terms of both its approach and
quality. Nonetheless, it is not altogether free from mistakes of omission and
mistranslation, such as in Al' Imran 111:43, Nisa' IV: 72, 147 and 157, Ma'ida
V: 55 and 71, An'am VI: 20, 105, A'raf VII: 157, 158 and 199, Anfal VIII: 17, 29,
41, 59, Yunus X: 88, Hud XI: 30 and 46 and Yusuf XII: 61.

N.J. Dawood is perhaps the only Jew to have translated the Qur'an into English.
Available in the Penguin edition, Dawood's translation, The Koran (London,
1956) is perhaps the most widely circulated non-Muslim English translation of
the Qur'an. The author's bias against Islam is readily observable in the
Introduction. Apart form adopting an unusual Sura order in his translation,
Dawood is guilty also of having mistranslated the Qur'an in places such as
Baqara II:9 and A'raf VII:31, etc.

No doubt, the peculiar circumstances of history which brought the Qur'an into
contact with the English language have left their imprint on the non-Muslim as
well as the Muslim bid to translate it. The results and achievements of their
efforts leave a lot to be desired.

Unlike, for instance, major Muslim languages such as Persian, Turkish and
Urdu, which have thoroughly exhausted indigenous linguistic and literary
resources to meet the scholarly and emotional demands of the task, the
prolific resources of the universal medium of English have not been fully
employed in the service of the Qur'an.

17
The Muslim Scripture is yet to find a dignified and faithful expression in the
English language that matches the majesty and grandeur of the original. The
currents of history, however, seem to be in favour of such a development.
Even English is acquiring a native Muslim character and it is only a matter of
time before we have a worthy translation of the Qur'an in that tongue.

Till them, the Muslim student should judiciously make use of Pickthall, A. Yusuf
Ali, Asad and Irving, Even Arberry's stylistic qualities must not be ignored.
Ultimately, of course, the Muslim should try to discover the original and not
allow himself to be lost in a maze of translations and interpretations.

(Originally printed in The Muslim World Book Review, Vol. 7, No. 4 Summer
1987)

Qur'an Translation - Difficulties of Qur'an Translation

Difficulties of Translation

By Huda, About.com Guide

http://islam.about.com/od/qurantranslations/a/qurantranslate.htm

While the text of the original Arabic Qur'an is identical and unchanged since its revelation, you will find various
translations and interpretations. Anytime a translation is done into another language, the translator (who is only
human) has to interpret the meaning and render it in the new language. It is, by nature, an approximation of the
meaning, since words and ideas cannot be expressed identically in different languages.

Arabic is a very rich language, and words have many shades of meaning. Thus in many languages it often requires
more wordiness to get the meaning across, which detracts from the beautiful simplicity of the Qur'anic message.
Arabic idioms, and the weight of the words, are difficult to understand and translate. While Arabic is a living language,
the classical Arabic of the Qur'an requires more study in order to fully appreciate and understand the depths of
meaning.

Another concern is the translator's familiarity with the target language. Some translations are done by individuals who
are very knowledgeable in Arabic, but they are not able to render the intended meaning because they are not familiar
with the nuances of the other language.

In the end, the dilemma is to find a translation that is linguistically and spiritually as accurate as possible, yet is
readable and flowing. In English, such a translation is difficult to find, though many have tried.
18
Many of the early translations of the Qur'an into English were done by Christian missionaries. Not surprisingly, they
are not known for their accuracy or faithfulness to the intended message.

Currently, translations are available from Hilali and Khan, Ali, Shakir, Pickthall, and others. Read below for a review of
the various translations currently on the market.

Translating the Untranslatable: A Survey of English

Translations of the Quran
by A.R. Kidwai

http://www.soundvision.com/Info/quran/english.asp

Despite the historical fact that the early Muslim community's stand on the translation of the Arabic
text of the Quran was ambivalent, as indeed, the general Muslim attitude remains so to this day,
the act of translation may be logically viewed as a natural part of the Muslim exegetical effort.
However, whereas the idea of interpreting the Quran has not been so controversial, the emotional
motives behind rendering the Quranic text into languages other than Arabic have always been
looked upon with suspicion.

This is obvious as the need for translating the Quran arose in those historic circumstances when a
large number of non-Arabic speaking people had embraced Islam, and giving new linguistic
orientations to the contents of the revelation - as, for instance, happened in the case of the 'New
Testament' - could have led to unforeseeable, and undesirable, developments within the body of
the Islamic religion itself. (For a brief, though highly useful, survey of the Muslim attitudes towards
the permissibility of translating the text of the revelation to non-Arabic tongues, see M. Ayoub,
'Translating the Meaning of the Quran: Traditional Opinions and Modern Debates', in Afkar Inquiry,
Vol. 3, No. 5 (Ramadan 1406/May 1986), pp.34 9).

The Muslim need for translating the Quran into English arose mainly out of the desire to combat
the missionary effort. Following a long polemical tradition, part of whose goal was also the
production of a - usually erroneous and confounding - European version of the Muslim scripture,
Christian missionaries started their offensive against a politically humiliated Islam in the
eighteenth century by advancing their own translations of the Quran.

Obviously, Muslims could not allow the missionary effort - invariably confounding the authenticity
of the text with a hostile commentary of its own - to go unopposed and unchecked. Hence, the
Muslim decision to present a faithful translation of the Quranic text as well as an authentic
summary of its teaching to the European world. Later, the Muslim translations were meant to serve
even those Muslims whose only access to the Quranic revelation was through the medium of the
European languages. Naturally, English was deemed the most important language for the Muslim
purpose, not least because of the existence of the British Empire which after the Ottomans had the
largest number of Muslim subjects.

19
The same rationale, however, applies to sectarian movements within Islam or even to renegade
groups outside the fold of Islam, such as the Qadiyanis. Their considerable translational activities
are motivated by the urge to proclaim their ideological uniqueness.

Although there is a spate of volumes on the multi-faceted dimensions of the Quran, no substantial
work has so far been done to critically examine the mass of existing English translations of the
Quran.

Even bibliographical material on this subject was quite scant before the fairly recent appearance
of World Bibliography of the Translations of the Meanings of the Holy Quran (Istanbul, OIC
Research Centre, 1986), which provides authoritative publication details of the translations of the
Quran in sixty-five languages.

Some highly useful work in this field had been done earlier by Dr. Hamidullah of Paris. Appended to
the Cambridge History of Arabic Literature Volume 1, Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad
Period (Cambridge university Press, 1983) is a bibliography of the Quran translations into European
languages, prepared by J.D. Pearson, as is the latter's article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. It is,
however, of not much use to the Muslim.

Since none of the above-mentioned works is annotated, the reader gets no idea about the
translator's mental make-up, his dogmatic presuppositions and his approach to the Quran as well as
the quality of the translation.

Similarly the small chapter entitled 'The Qur'an and Occidental Scholarship' in Bell and Watt's
Introduction to the Qur'an (Edinburgh, 1970, pp. 173-86), although useful in providing background
information to Orientalists' efforts in Quranic studies, and translations, more or less for the same
reasons, is of little value to general Muslim readers. Thus, studies which focus on those aspects of
each translation of the Quran are urgently needed lest Western scholars misguide the unsuspecting
non-Arabic speaking readers of the Quran. An effort has been made in this survey to bring out the
hallmarks and shortcomings of the major complete translations of the Quran.

The early English translations of the Quran by Muslims stemmed mainly from the pious enthusiasm
on their part to refute the allegations leveled by the Christian missionaries against Islam in general
and the Quran in particular.

Illustrative of this trend are the following translations:

(i) Mohammad Abdul Hakim Khan, The Holy Qur'an:'with short notes based on the Holy Qur'an or
the authentic traditions of the Prophet, or and New Testaments or scientific truth. All fictitious
romance, questionable history and disputed theories have been carefully avoided' (Patiala, 1905);

(ii) Hairat Dehlawi, The Koran Prepared, by various Oriental learned scholars and edited by Mirza
Hairat Dehlawi. Intended as 'a complete and exhaustive reply to the manifold criticisms of the
Koran by various Christian authors such as Drs. Sale, Rodwell, Palmer and Sir W. Muir' (Delhi, 1912);
and

20
(iii) Mirzal Abu'l Fadl, Qur'an, Arabic Text and English Translation Arranged Chronologically with
an Abstract (Allahabad, 1912).

Since none of these early translations was by a reputed Islamic scholar, both the quality of the
translation and level of scholarship are not very high and these works are of mere historical
interest.

Later works, however, reflect a more mature and scholarly effort.

Muhammad Marmaduke William Pickthall, an English man of letters who embraced Islam, holds the
distinction of bringing out a first-rate rendering of the Qur'an in English, The Meaning of the
Glorious Qur'an (London, 1930).

It keeps scrupulously close to the original in elegant, though now somewhat archaic, English.
However, although it is one of the most widely used English translations, it provides scant
explanatory notes and background information. This obviously restricts its usefulness for an
uninitiated reader of the Qur'an.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali's The Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary (Lahore, 1934 37), perhaps the
most popular translation, stands as another major achievement in this field. A civil servant by
vocation, Yusuf Ali was not a scholar in the classical Muslim tradition. Small wonder, then, that
some of his copious notes, particularly on hell and heaven, angels, jinn and polygamy, etc. are
informed with the pseudo-rationalist spirit of his times, as for instance in the works of S. Ahmad
and S. Ameer Ali.

His overemphasis on things spiritual also distorts the Qur'anic worldview. Against this is the fact
that Yusuf Ali doubtless was one of the few Muslims who enjoyed an excellent command over the
English language. It is fully reflected in his translation. Though his is more of a paraphrase than a
literal translation, yet it faithfully represents the sense of the original.

Abdul Majid Daryabadi's The Holy Qur'an: with English Translation and Commentary (Lahore, 1941 -
57) is, however, fully cognate with the traditional Muslim viewpoint.

Like PIckthall's earlier attempt, it is a faithful rendering, supplemented with useful notes on
historical, geographical and eschatological issues, particularly the illuminating discussions on
comparative religion. Though the notes are not always very exhaustive, they help to dispel the
doubts in the minds of Westernized readers. However, it too contains inadequate background
information about the Suras (chapters of the Quran) and some of his notes need updating.

The Meaning of the Qur'an (Lahore, 1967), the English version of Sayyid Abul A'la Mawdud'i's
magnum opus, the Urdu Tafhim al-Quran is an interpretative rendering of the Qur'an which
remarkably succeeds in recapturing some of the majesty of the original.

Since Mawdudi, a great thinker, enjoyed rare mastery over both classical and modern scholarship,
his work helps one develop an understanding of the Qur'an as a source of guidance. Apart from
setting the verses/Suras in the circumstances of its time, the author constantly relates, though
exhaustive notes, the universal message of the Qur'an to his own time and its specific problems.

21
His logical line of argument, generous sensibility, judicious use of classical Muslim scholarship and
practical solutions to the problems of the day combine to show Islam as a complete way of life and
as the Right Path for the whole of mankind. Since the translation of this invaluable work done by
Muhammad Akbar is pitiably poor and uninspiring, the much-needed new English translation of the
entire work is in progress under the auspices of the Islamic Foundation, Leicester.

The Message of the Quran by Muhammad Asad (Gibraltar, 1980) represents a notable addition to
the body of English translations couched in chaste English. This work is nonetheless vitiated by
deviation from the viewpoint of the Muslim orthodoxy on many counts. Averse to take some
Qur'anic statements literally, Asad denies the occurrence of such events as the throwing of
Abraham into the fire, Jesus speaking in the cradle, etc. He also regards Luqman, Khizr and
Zulqarnain as 'mythical figures' and holds unorthodox views on the abrogation of verses. These
blemishes apart, this highly readable translation contains useful, though sometimes unreliable
background information about the Qur'anic Suras and even provides exhaustive notes on various
Qur'anic themes.

The fairly recent The Qur'an: The First American Version (Vermont, 1985) by another native Muslim
speaker of English, T.B. Irving, marks the appearance of the latest major English translation. Apart
from the obnoxious title, the work is bereft of textual and explanatory notes.

Using his own arbitrary judgment, Irving has assigned themes to each Qur'anic Ruku' (section).
Although modern and forceful English has been used, it is not altogether free of instances of
mistranslation and loose expressions. With American readers in mind, particularly the youth, Irving
has employed many American English idioms, which, in places, are not befitting of the dignity of
the Qur'anic diction and style.

In addition to the above, there are also a number of other English translations by Muslims, which,
however, do not rank as significant ventures in this field.

They may be listed as:

1. Al-Hajj Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar, Translation of the Holy Qur'an (Singapore, 1920)
2. Ali Ahmad Khan Jullundri, Translation of the Glorious Holy Qur'an with commentary (Lahore,
1962)
3. Abdur Rahman Tariq and Ziauddin Gilani, The Holy Qur'an Rendered into English (Lahore, 1966)
4. Syed Abdul Latif, Al-Qur'an: Rendered into English (Hyderabad, 1969)
5. Hashim Amir Ali, The Message of the Qur'an Presented in Perspective (Tokyo, 1974)
6. Taqui al-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Explanatory English Translation of the Holy
Qur'an: A Summarized Version of Ibn Kathir Supplemented by At-Tabari with Comments from
Sahih al-Bukhari (Chicago, 1977)
7. Muhammad Ahmad Mofassir, The Koran: The First Tafsir in English (London, 1979)
8. Mahmud Y. Zayid, The Qur'an: An English Translation of the Meaning of the Qur'an (checked and
revised in collaboration with a committee of Muslim scholars) (Beirut, 1980)
9. S.M. Sarwar, The Holy Qur'an: Arab Text and English Translation (Elmhurst, 1981)
10. Ahmed Ali, Al-Qur'an: A Contemporary Translation (Karachi, 1984).

22
(In view of the blasphemous statements contained in Rashad Khalifa's The Qur'an: The Final
Scripture (Authorized English Version) (Tucson, 1978), it has not been included in the translations
by Muslims).

Even amongst the Muslim translations, some are representative of the strong sectarian biases of
their translators.

For example, the Shia doctrines are fully reflected in accompanying commentaries of the following
books: S.V. Mir Ahmad Ali, The Holy Qur'an with English Translation and Commentary, according to
the version of the Holy Ahlul Bait includes 'special notes from Hujjatul Islam Ayatullah Haji Mirza
Mahdi Pooya Yazdi on the philosophical aspects of the verses' (Karachi, 1964); M.H. Shakir, Holy
Qur'an (New York, 1982); Syed Muhammad Hussain at-Tabatabai, al-Mizan: An Exegesis of the
Qur'an, translated from Persian into English by Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi (Tehran, 198~). So far
five volumes of this work have been published.

Illustrative of the Barelvi sectarian stance is Holy Qur'an, the English version of Ahmad Raza Khan
Brailai's Urdu translation, by Hanif Akhtar Fatmi (Lahore, n.d.).

As pointed out earlier, the Qadiyanis, though having abandoned Islam, have been actively engaged
in translating the Qur'an, Apart from English, their translations are available in several European
and African languages.

Muhammad Ali's The Holy Qur'an: English Translation (Lahore, 1917) marks the beginning of this
effort. This Qadiyani translator is guilty of misinterpreting several Qur'anic verses, particularly
those related to the Promised Messiah, his miracles and the Qur'anic angelology.

Similar distortions mar another Qadiyani translation by Sher Ali, The Holy Qur'an: Arabic Text with
English Translation (Rabwah, 1955).Published under the auspices of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud
Ahmad, second successor of the "Promised Messiah" and head of the Ahmadiyyas, this oft-reprinted
work represents the official Qadiyani version of the Qur'an. Unapologizingly, Sher Sher Ali refers to
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the "Promised Messiah" and mistranslates and misinterprets a number of
Qur'anic verses.

Zafarullah Khan's The Qur'an: Arabic Text and English Translation (London, 1970) ranks as another
notable Qadiyani venture in this field. Like other Qadiyanis, Zafarullah too twists the Qur'anic
verses to opine that the door of prophethood was not closed with the Prophet Muhammad (peace
and blessings be upon him). The obtrusion of similar obnoxious views upon the Qur'anic text is
found in the following Qadiyani translations, too:

(i) Kamaluddin and Nazir Ahmad, A Running Commentary of the Holy Qur'an (London, 1948)
(ii) Salahuddin Peer, The Wonderful Koran (Lahore, 1960)
(iii) Malik Ghulam Farid, The Holy Qur'an (Rabwah, 1962)
(iv) Khadim Rahman Nuri, The Running Commentary of the Holy Qur'an with under-bracket
comments (Shillong, 1964)
(v) Firozuddin Ruhi, The Qur'an (Karachi, 1965)

23
Apart from the Qadiyanis, Christian missionaries have been the most active non-Muslim translators
of the Qur'an. As already noted, origins of this inglorious tradition may be traced back to the anti-
Islamic motives of the missionaries.

Small wonder, then that these ventures are far from being a just translation, replete as they are
with frequent transpositions, omissions, unaccountable liberties and unpardonable faults.

A very crude specimen of the Orientalist-missionary approach to the Qur'an is found in Alexander
Ross's The Alcoran of Mahomet translated out of Arabique into French, by the Sieur Du Ryer...And
newly Englished, for the satisfaction for all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities (London,
1649).

In translating the Qur'an, the intention of Ross, a chaplain of King Charles I, was: 'I thought good to
bring it to their colours, that so viewing thine enemies in their full body, thou must the better
prepare to encounter...his Alcoran.'

In the same rabidly anti-Islamic vein are the two appendices in the work entitled as (a) 'A Needful
Caveat or Admonition, for them who desire to know what use may be made of or if there be danger
in reading the Alcoran' (pp. 406 20) and 'The Life and Death of Mahomet: the Prophet of the Turks
and author of the Alcoran' (pp. 395-405).

George Sale, a lawyer brought out his The Koran, commonly called The Al Koran of Mohammed
(London, 1734), which has been the most popular English translation. Sale's exhaustive 'Preliminary
Discourse', dealing mainly with Sira and the Qur'an, betrays his deep hostility towards Islam and his
missionary intent in that he suggests the rules to be observed for 'the conversion of Mohammedans'
(q.v.).

As to the translation itself, it abounds in numerous instances of omission, distortion and

interpolations.

Dissatisfied with Sale's work, J.M. Rodwell, Rector of St. Ethelberga, London, produced his
translation entitled The Koran (London, 1861). Apart from hurling all sorts of wild and nasty
allegations against the Prophet and the Qur'an in the Preface, Rodwell is guilty of having invented
the so-called chronological Sura order of the Qur'an. Nor is his translation free from grave mistakes
of translation and his own fanciful interpretations in the notes.

E.H. Palmer, a Cambridge scholar, was entrusted with the preparation of a new translation of the
Qur'an for Max Muller's Sacred Books of the East series. Accordingly, his translation, The Qur'an,
appeared in London in 1880. As to the worth of Palmer's translation, reference may be made to A.
R. Nykl's article, 'Notes on E.H. Palmer's The Qur'an', published in the Journal of the American
Oriental Society, 56 (1936) pp. 77-84 in which no less than 65 instances of omission and
mistranslation in Palmer's work have been pointed out.

Richard Bell, Reader of Arabic, University of Edinburgh, and an acknowledged Orientalist produced
a translation of the Qur'an with special reference to its Sura order, as is evident from the title of
his work, The Qur'an translated with a critical rearrangement of the Surahs (Edinburgh, 1937-39).
In addition to describing the Prophet as the author of the Qur'an, Bell also believes that the Qur'an

24
in its present form was 'actually written by Muhammad himself' (p. vi). In rearranging the Sura
order of the Qur'an, Bell, in fact, makes a thorough mess of the traditional arrangement and tries
to point out 'alterations substitutions and derangements in the text.

A.J. Arberry, a renowned Orientalist and Professor of Arabic at the Universities of London and
Cambridge, has been, so far, the latest non-Muslim translator of the Qur'an.

Arberry's The Koran Interpreted (London, 1957) no doubt stands out above the other English
renderings by non-Muslims in terms of both its approach and quality. Nonetheless, it is not
altogether free from mistakes of omission and mistranslation, such as in Al' Imran 111:43, Nisa' IV:
72, 147 and 157, Ma'ida V: 55 and 71, An'am VI: 20, 105, A'raf VII: 157, 158 and 199, Anfal VIII: 17,
29, 41, 59, Yunus X: 88, Hud XI: 30 and 46 and Yusuf XII: 61.

N.J. Dawood is perhaps the only Jew to have translated the Qur'an into English. Available in the
Penguin edition, Dawood's translation, The Koran (London, 1956) is perhaps the most widely
circulated non-Muslim English translation of the Qur'an. The author's bias against Islam is readily
observable in the Introduction. Apart form adopting an unusual Sura order in his translation,
Dawood is guilty also of having mistranslated the Qur'an in places such as Baqara II:9 and A'raf
VII:31, etc.

No doubt, the peculiar circumstances of history which brought the Qur'an into contact with the
English language have left their imprint on the non-Muslim as well as the Muslim bid to translate it.
The results and achievements of their efforts leave a lot to be desired.

Unlike, for instance, major Muslim languages such as Persian, Turkish and Urdu, which have
thoroughly exhausted indigenous linguistic and literary resources to meet the scholarly and
emotional demands of the task, the prolific resources of the universal medium of English have not
been fully employed in the service of the Qur'an.

The Muslim Scripture is yet to find a dignified and faithful expression in the English language that
matches the majesty and grandeur of the original. The currents of history, however, seem to be in
favour of such a development. Even English is acquiring a native Muslim character and it is only a
matter of time before we have a worthy translation of the Qur'an in that tongue.

Till them, the Muslim student should judiciously make use of Pickthall, A. Yusuf Ali, Asad and
Irving, Even Arberry's stylistic qualities must not be ignored. Ultimately, of course, the Muslim
should try to discover the original and not allow himself to be lost in a maze of translations and
interpretations.

(Originally printed in The Muslim World Book Review, Vol. 7, No. 4 Summer 1987)

25
Lost in translation. Most English-language editions of the Qur'an have
contained numerous errors, omissions and distortions. Hardly
surprising, writes Ziauddin Sardar, when one of their purposes was
to denigrate not just the Holy Book, but the entire Islamic faith

Ziauddin Sardar
Published 09 August 2004 http://www.newstatesman.com/200408090035

The Qur'an Translated by M A S Abdel Haleem Oxford University Press, 464pp, £14.99 ISBN
0192805487

Translations of the Qur'an have long been a battleground. Ostensibly, the purpose of translating
the most sacred text of Islam is to make it accessible to those without Arabic - Muslims and non-
Muslims alike. But English translations of the Qur'an have frequently been used to subvert the text
as well as its real message. The most obvious point to be made about any translation of the Qur'an
(and the correct spelling is Qur'an, not Koran) is that, strictly speaking, it is not the Qur'an.
Literally, "qur'an" means "reading", or that which should be read. It is an epic poetic text, meant to
be read aloud, whose true import can be communicated only in the original. A translation is not
that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men and women to tears and ecstasy. It
is only an attempt to give the barest suggestion of the meaning of the Qur'an. This is why both
classical and contemporary Muslim scholars and jurists agree that translations of the Qur'an cannot
be read during daily prayers. Indeed, some scholars go so far as to argue that the Qur'an cannot be
written down in letters other than the original Arabic characters.

It is not just the heightened language and poetic nature of the Qur'an that creates problems for
translators. The Qur'an is not a book like any other. It cannot, for example, be compared with the
Torah or the Bible, simply because it is not a book of narrative records of ancient peoples -
although it does contain some stories of prophets and earlier nations. It is not a "linear" text with a
chronological order or a "logical" beginning, middle and end. Its chapters can be very short or very
long. It repeats stories in different chapters, often skips from one subject to another, and offers
instruction on the same subject in different places. It has a specific lattice structure that connects
every word and every verse with every other word and verse by rhythm, rhyme and meaning.

European thinkers have frequently used the special structure of the Qur'an to denigrate the Holy
Book. The otherwise sensible Thomas Carlyle found the "Koran" to be "a wearisome confused
jumble", and declared that only "a sense of duty could carry any European through the Koran". The
18th-century French philo-sopher and historian Constantin Volney described the Qur'an as "a tissue
of vague, contradictory declamations, of ridiculous, dangerous precepts". Given that most
European translators have seen the Qur'an in this way, it is not surprising that their translations
have left a great deal to be desired. Some have even gone so far as to say that the Qur'an lacks the
necessary structure, logic and rationality to be thought of as a book at all.

The first direct translation of the Qur'an into English was by George Sale, in 1734; this, Sale said,
provided clear evidence that the Qur'an was the work of several authors. Subsequent translators
thought that the only way to make any sense of the Qur'an was to rearrange it into some sort of
26
chronological order. The first translation to do so - by J M Rodwell, rector of St Ethelburga, London
- was published in 1861. A more thorough rearrangement was attempted by Richard Bell, a noted
Scottish orientalist, whose translation, published in Edinburgh in four editions between 1937 and
1939, was entitled The Qur'an, Translated, With a Critical Rearrangement of the Surahs.

Playing havoc with the structure of the Qur'an, however, was not enough. Translators also used
omission, distortion and mistranslation to subvert the message and meaning of the Holy Book.
Consider, for example, the most widely available translation in English, by N J Dawood, the first
edition of which was published by Penguin in 1956. This translation subverts the original in several
ways. Often a single word is mistranslated in a verse to give it totally the opposite meaning. In
2:217, for example, we read: "idolatry is worse than carnage". The word translated as "idolatry" is
"fitna", which actually means persecution or oppression. Dawood's translation conveys an
impression that the Qur'an will put up with carnage but not idolatry. In fact, the Qur'an is making
persecution and oppression a crime greater than murder. The extract should read: "oppression is
more awesome than killing".

At other times, Dawood uses subtle mistranslation to give an undertow of violence to the language
of the Qur'an. This is evident even in his translations of chapter titles. "Az-Zumar", which simply
means "crowd", is translated as "The Hordes"; "As-Saff", which means "the ranks", is translated as
"Battle Array". "Al-Alaq", which literally means "that which clings", and refers to the embryo as it
attaches to the wall of the uterus, is translated as "Clots of Blood". Most Muslim translators simply
call the chapter "The Clot". What is intended to convey the idea of birth, Dawood projects as the
notion of death. Like previous orientalist translators, he also goes out of his way to suggest that
the Qur'an is a sexist text. The Qur'an demands that humanity serve God; in Dawood's translation,
this injunction applies only to men. Spouses become virgins. Conjuring witches appear from
nowhere. Thus, readers of Dawood's version - and most other popular translations of the Qur'an -
have come away with the impression that the Holy Book sanctions violence or sexual oppression.

For those interested in getting to the heart of the holy text, the good news is that there is now a
much more accurate translation available. Muhammad A S Abdel Haleem, professor of Islamic
studies at London's School of Oriental and African Studies, has set out not only to translate the text
faithfully, but also to make it accessible to ordinary English readers. He achieves this by offering a
purely linguistic reading of the Qur'an. He transforms the Holy Book's complex grammar and
structure into smooth, contemporary English mercifully free from archaisms, anachronisms and
incoherence. The result is both accessible and compelling.

Abdel Haleem makes use of a simple but ingenious device to solve two critical problems. The
Qur'an often addresses different parties - for example, the Prophet, or the Community of
Believers, or the hostile Meccan tribe of the Quraysh - and switches from one to another in the
same verse. Abdel Haleem inserts parentheses to make it clear who is speaking or whom is being
addressed. He uses the same device to provide context: for example, when the Qur'an says "those
who believed and emigrated", Abdel Haleem adds "[to Medina]". He also includes brief summaries
at the beginning of each chapter, as well as judicious footnotes explaining geographical, historical
and personal allusions.

Abdel Haleem's emphasis on context - the way that each verse connects with many others, and how
the different parts of the Holy Book explain each other - makes this translation a remarkable

27
achievement. For the first time, readers of the Qur'an in translation are able to see that it is a
commentary on the life of the Prophet Muhammad. It spans a period of 23 years; and to
understand what is going on in any particular verse, you need to appreciate what is happening in
the Prophet's life at the moment the verse was revealed. Moreover, to understand what the Qur'an
says about a particular subject in one particular verse, you have to know what the Qur'an says
about the same topic in different places.

This is why, as Abdel Haleem points out in the introduction, you cannot lift a single verse out of
context and use it to argue a point or to show what the Qur'an has to say about something. To
illustrate the point, he refers to the oft-quoted verse "Slay them wherever you find them" (2:191).
This was taken out of context by Dawood, Haleem argues, and thus used to justify the claim that
the Qur'an sanctions violence against non-Muslims; and, after 9/11, to rationalise the actions of
extremists. In fact, the only situation in which the Qur'an sanctions violence is in self-defence. This
particular verse has a context: the Muslims, performing pilgrimage in the sacred precinct in Mecca,
were under attack and did not know whether they were permitted to retaliate. The verse permits
them to fight back on this - but not necessarily any other - occasion.

Yet even a translation as good as this has limitations. Despite its originality, it is very much an
orthodox reading of the Qur'an. The explanatory footnotes rely heavily on classical commentaries,
particularly that of the late 12th-century scholar and theologian Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. And it does
not inspire a sense of poetic beauty. But then, in a translation of a text as rich and complex as the
Qur'an, you can't expect to have everything.

Ziauddin Sardar's Desperately Seeking Paradise: journeys of a sceptical Muslim is published by

Granta Books

Assessing English Translations of the Qur'an

by Khaleel Mohammed
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2005, pp. 58-71

28
http://www.meforum.org/717/assessing-english-translations-of-the-quran

Multiple English translations of the Qur'an, Islam's scripture, line shelves at book stores. Amazon.com sells
more than a dozen. Because of the growing Muslim communities in English-speaking countries, as well as
greater academic interest in Islam, there has been a blossoming in recent years of English translations. Muslims
view the Qur'an as God's direct words revealed in Arabic to the Prophet Muhammad (d. 632).[1] Because the
Qur'an stresses its Arabic nature, Muslim scholars believe that any translation cannot be more than an
approximate interpretation, intended only as a tool for the study and understanding of the original Arabic text.
[2] Since fewer than 20 percent of Muslims speak Arabic, this means that most Muslims study the text only in
translation. So how accurate are the Qur'an's renderings into English? The record is mixed. Some are simply
poor translations. Others adopt sectarian biases, and those that are funded by Saudi Arabia often insert political
annotation. Since translators seek to convey not only text but also meaning, many rely on the interpretation
(tafsir) of medieval scholars in order to conform to an "orthodox" reading.

Contextualizing the Qur'an

No serious researcher denies that Muhammad came to a milieu that was highly influenced by Judeo-Christian
ideas. Indeed, the Qur'an presupposes familiarity with Judeo-Christian ideas to the extent that it often does not
give the full version of a narrative; there is no need to identify what is supposed to be common knowledge.[3]
A typical example is in the verse that was only partially cited by Muslims commenting on news programs in the
wake of the 9-11 terror attacks: "Whoever has killed a single human without just cause, it is as if he has killed
the entire humankind."[4] In fact, the full verse is: "And for this reason, we ordained for the children of Israel
that whoever has killed a single human without just cause, it is as if he has killed the entire humankind."
Significantly, the complete verse refers to a divine edict not found in the Torah, but rather in the Mishnah, part
of the Jewish oral tradition.[5]

Evidence of Muhammad's familiarity with Judaism is present in the Qur'an. One verse suggests that his
contemporaries accused him of having a Jewish teacher.[6] When some Arabs challenged Muhammad's claim
to be a prophet based on his mortality, he suggested that they consult Jewish scholars about history.[7] Early
Muslims resorted to Jewish lore so heavily that they produced a genre of literature: the Isra'iliyat, loosely
translated as the Judaic traditions.[8] An oral tradition was even attributed to Muhammad wherein he
supposedly said, "Relate from the people of Israel, and there is no objection,"[9] thereby enabling Islamic
scholars to cite precedents from Jewish scholarship.[10]

By the ninth century, this began to change. Muslim jurists, increasingly opposed to reliance upon Jewish lore,
created new sayings from the Prophet and his companions that contradicted the original allowances. In one of
these apocryphal traditions, Muhammad's face changes color when he sees his follower Umar reading the
Torah. Muhammad declares that had Moses been their contemporary, he, too, would have followed the Muslim
prophet.[11] An alternate version claims that the Prophet asked Umar, "Do you wish to rush to perdition as did
the Jews and Christians? I have brought you white and clean hadiths [oral traditions]."[12] Despite the
unreliability of this hadith, it has evolved into a position that any Muslim who questions it could be accused of
heresy.

Since Muslims could no longer seek support from Jewish sources, successive generations of scholars lost
understanding of Qur'anic references.[13] From the tenth century on, the result has been that voices of the
medieval scholars have trumped the vox-dei. Without a serious reexamination, it is uncertain whether Muslims

29
will be able to get to the essence of their religion's main document. The inaccuracies and artifices of medieval
biases remain, unfortunately, pervasively present in English translations by Muslim scholars.

Early Translations

The first translations to English were not undertaken by Muslims but by Christians who sought to debunk Islam
and aid in the conversion of Muslims to Christianity. Alexander Ross, chaplain to Charles I (r. 1625-49) and the
first to embark on the translation process, subtitled his 1649 work as "newly Englished for the satisfaction for
all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities."[14] Interestingly, Ross did not speak Arabic and relied on
secondarily translating from the French, a language in which he was not well-schooled. He, therefore, based his
interpretation on a problematic rendition by Andrew Du Ryer. According to George Sale (1697-1736), "[Du
Ryer's] performance … is far from being a just translation; there being mistakes in every page, besides frequent
transpositions, omissions and additions, faults."[15]

Most eighteenth and nineteenth century translations were undertaken by authors without strong background in
Islam. As they were goaded by the urge to answer Christian polemic, their forgettable works do not reflect any
intellectual depth; as such, copies are extremely rare. Among the best known, albeit pejorative, English-
language analyses of Islam during this time were those by Christian authors such as George Sale, John Rodwell
(1808-1900), Edward Palmer (1840-1882), and Sir William Muir (1819-1905).[16] Of these, Sale was probably
the most important because he wrote a detailed critique about earlier translations.[17] His work became the
standard reference for all English readers until almost the end of the nineteenth century.[18] However, his work
was limited by his lack of access to public libraries forcing him to rely only upon material in his personal
collection.[19] While Sale gave the impression that he based his translation on the Arabic text, others have
suggested that he relied on an earlier Latin translation.[20] Sale did not insert verse numbers into his work, nor
did he insert footnotes or other explanations. The result, therefore, is a work that is extremely difficult to
comprehend.

Indian Muslims were the first from within the faith to translate the Qur'an to English according to Abdur Rahim
Kidwai, professor of English at Aligarh University, India. All wrote at a time of British colonialism and intense
missionary activity. Kidwai noted works by Mohammad Abdul Hakim Khan (Patiala, 1905), Mirza Hairat
Dehlawi (Delhi, 1912), and Mirza Abu'l Fazl (Allahabad, 1912).[21] Dehlawi was motivated consciously by a
desire to give "a complete and exhaustive reply to the manifold criticisms of the Koran by various Christian
authors such as Drs. Sale, Rodwell, Palmer, and Sir W. Muir."

The early twentieth century reaction spurred a lasting translation trend. There have been successive new
English translations, ranging from mediocre to reservedly commendable. Western university presses have
undertaken publication of renditions: Princeton has published Ahmed 'Ali's rendition, and Oxford University
Press has published the work of M.A.S. Abdel-Haleem. These productions are among the most widespread
translations that are analyzed below.

Twentieth Century Classics

The Holy Qur'an. By Muhammad 'Ali.

In 1917, an Ahmadi[22] scholar, Muhammad 'Ali (1875-1951), who later would become the leader of the
Lahori subgroup, published his translation.[23] He constantly updated his work and had published four
revisions by his death in 1951. Contemporary reviewers praised Muhammad 'Ali both for his excellent English
30
and explanatory notes.[24] Importantly, the Muhammad 'Ali translation became the version adopted by the
Nation of Islam, both under the stewardship of Elijah Muhammad and current leader Louis Farrakhan.

Muhammad 'Ali's biases show through, however. Consistent with his Lahori-Ahmadi creed, Muhammad 'Ali
sought to eschew any reference to miracles. He sometimes departed from a faithful rendering of the original
Arabic, as in the second chapter[25] in which the Qur'an replicates the Biblical story of Moses striking the rock
for water,[26] and states "idrib bi asaka al-hajr," literally, "strike the rock with your staff." Muhammad 'Ali,
however, changed the text to "March on to the rock with your staff," an interpretation for which the Arabic
construction does not allow.

Both Muhammad 'Ali's disbelief in the miraculous and his disdain for Judaism and Christianity undercut his
work in other ways. The Qur'an makes frequent mention of jinn (spirits), from which the English word "genie"
is derived. Muhammad 'Ali, curiously, argues that the Qur'an equates jinn with Jews and Christians.[27] While
the Qur'an supports the story of Jesus' virgin birth,[28] Muhammad 'Ali denies it, providing a footnote to deny
that the Qur'an was referring to anything miraculous.[29]

Despite its blatant sectarian warp, Muhammad 'Ali's translation—now in its seventh edition[30]—has formed
the basis for many later works, even if the majority of both Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims avoid directly
acknowledging or using an Ahmadi translation. Nevertheless, among the Lahori Ahmadis, many of whom live
in the United States, Muhammad 'Ali's work remains the definitive translation.

The Meaning of the Glorious Koran. By Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall.

Marmaduke Pickthall (1875-1936) was the son of an Anglican clergyman who traveled to the East and acquired
fluency in Arabic, Turkish, and Urdu. He was a novelist, traveler, and educator who converted to Islam in 1917.
In 1920, he traveled to India and became a journalist for Muslim newspapers as well as headmaster of a Muslim
boys' school.[31] While teaching in Hyderabad, Pickthall took a two-year sabbatical to complete his
translation[32] and was aided by several notables, among them, Mustafa al-Maraghi, then-rector of Al-Azhar,
one of Sunni Islam's top institutions of Islamic studies, and the nizam[33] of Hyderabad to whom the work is
dedicated. Pickthall was aware of the problems of the Christian missionaries' translations and sought to remedy
the defects since "some of the translations include commentation offensive to Muslims, and almost all employ a
style of language which Muslims at once recognize as unworthy."[34] He first endorsed the position of Muslim
scholars that the Qur'an was untranslatable but maintained that the general meaning of the text could still be
conveyed to English speakers. Aware that heavily annotated works detracted from focus on the actual text,
Pickthall provided few explanatory notes and tried to let the text speak for itself.

As much as Pickthall strove to maintain the spirit of the Qur'an, he was, nonetheless, heavily influenced by
Muhammad 'Ali, whom he had met in London. He adopted Muhammad 'Ali's bias against descriptions of
miracles and argued, for example, that the Qur'anic description of Muhammad's night voyage to the
heavens[35] was just a vision,[36] even though most Muslim theologians argue that it should be taken literally.
While Pickthall's work was popular in the first half of the twentieth century and, therefore, historically
important, its current demand is limited by its archaic prose and lack of annotation. Perhaps the death knell for
the Pickthall translation's use has been the Saudi government's decision to distribute other translations free of
charge.

The Koran Interpreted. By Arthur Arberry.

31
The 1955 translation of Arthur Arberry (1905-69) was the first English translation by a bona fide scholar of
Arabic and Islam. A Cambridge University graduate, he spent several years in the Middle East perfecting his
Arabic and Persian language skills. For a short while, he served as professor of classics at Cairo University; in
1946, he was professor of Persian at University of London, and the next year transferred to Cambridge to
become professor of Arabic, serving there until his death in 1969. His title, The Koran Interpreted,
acknowledged the orthodox Muslim view that the Qu'ran cannot be translated, but only interpreted.[37] He
rendered the Qur'an into understandable English and separated text from tradition. The translation is without
prejudice and is probably the best around. The Arberry version has earned the admiration of intellectuals
worldwide, and having been reprinted several times, remains the reference of choice for most academics. It
seems destined to maintain that position for the foreseeable future.

Saudi-endorsed Translations

The Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary. By Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali.

Among those Qur'an translations which found Saudi favor and, therefore, wide distribution, was the Abdullah
Yusuf 'Ali (1872-1952) rendition[38] that, from its first appearance in 1934 until very recently, was the most
popular English version among Muslims. While not an Islamic scholar in any formal sense, Yusuf 'Ali, an
Indian civil servant, had studied classics at Cambridge University, graduated as a lawyer from Lincoln's Inn in
London, and was gifted with an eloquent, vivid writing style. He sought to convey the music and richness of the
Arabic with poetic English versification. While his rendering of the text is not bad, there are serious problems
in his copious footnotes; in many cases, he reproduces the exegetical material from medieval texts without
making any effort at contextualization. Writing at a time both of growing Arab animosity toward Zionism and
in a milieu that condoned anti-Semitism, Yusuf 'Ali constructed his oeuvre as a polemic against Jews.

Several Muslim scholars have built upon the Yusuf 'Ali translation.[39] In 1989, Saudi Arabia's Ar-Rajhi
banking company financed the U.S.-based Amana Corporation's project to revise the translation to reflect an
interpretation more in conjunction with the line of Islamic thought followed in Saudi Arabia. Ar-Rahji offered
the resulting version for free to mosques, schools, and libraries throughout the world. The footnoted
commentary about Jews remained so egregious that, in April 2002, the Los Angeles school district banned its
use at local schools.[40] While the Yusuf 'Ali translation still remains in publication, it has lost influence
because of its dated language and the appearance of more recent works whose publication and distribution the
Saudi government has also sought to subsidize.

The Noble Qur'an in the English Language. By Muhammad Taqi al-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad
Muhsin Khan.

Now the most widely disseminated Qur'an in most Islamic bookstores and Sunni mosques throughout the
English-speaking world, this new translation[41] is meant to replace the Yusuf 'Ali edition and comes with a
seal of approval from both the University of Medina and the Saudi Dar al-Ifta.[42] Whereas most other
translators have tried to render the Qur'an applicable to a modern readership, this Saudi-financed venture tries
to impose the commentaries of Tabari (d. 923 C.E.), Qurtubi (d. 1273 C.E.), and Ibn Kathir (d. 1372 C.E.),
medievalists who knew nothing of modern concepts of pluralism. The numerous interpolations make this
translation particularly problematic, especially for American Muslims who, in the aftermath of 9-11, are
struggling to show that Islam is a religion of tolerance.

From the beginning, the Hilali and Muhsin Khan translation reads more like a supremacist Muslim, anti-
Semitic, anti-Christian polemic than a rendition of the Islamic scripture. In the first sura, for example, verses
32
which are universally accepted as, "Guide us to the straight path, the path of those whom You have favored, not
of those who have incurred Your wrath, nor of those who have gone astray"[43] become, "Guide us to the
Straight Way, the way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who have
earned Your anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians)."[44] What is
particularly egregious about this interpolation is that it is followed by an extremely long footnote to justify its
hate based on traditions from medieval texts.

Contemporary political disputes also pollute the translation, marring what should be a reflection of timeless
religion. Whereas the Qur'an reports Moses's address to the Israelites as "O my people! Enter the Holy Land
that God has assigned unto you,"[45] this Saudi version twists the verse with modern politics, writing, "O my
people! Enter the holy land (Palestine)."

The appendix includes a polemical comparison of Jesus and Muhammad, reporting that the former had no claim
to divinity.[46] From a Muslim perspective, what Jesus did or did not do should be drawn from the Qur'anic
text, not an appendix, and certainly not by Muslim readings of the gospels. In fact, while the Qur'an does take
issue with the Christian claims of divinity for Jesus, it views him, along with his mother Mary, as being truly
blessed and peaceful, much in concordance with the general Christian belief.[47] Although this Saudi-
sponsored effort, undertaken before 9-11, is a serious liability for American Muslims in particular, it still
remains present in Sunni mosques, probably because of its free distribution by the Saudi government.

Bucking the Saudi Orthodoxy

The Message of the Qur'an. By Muhammad Asad.

Not every translation preaches the Saudi line. Muhammad Asad, for example, presents a rendering that is
simple and straightforward.[48] A Jewish convert to Islam, the former Leopold Weiss (1900-1992) sought to
depart from the traditional exegetic approaches and reflect independent thought. Asad, an Austrian journalist,
was well-versed in the Jewish and Christian scriptures and brought this knowledge to bear in the form of erudite
footnotes. Strangely, though, he chose to interpolate material in his translation of chapter 37 to show that the
sacrificial son was Ishmael and not Isaac.[49] This is rather unusual, for while most contemporary Muslims
opine that Ishmael was the sacrificial son, early exegetes differed on his identity, and as is well known, the
Bible clearly states that it was Isaac (Genesis 22:9).[50] Indicative of the desire and drive of Saudi Arabia to
impose a Salafi[51] interpretation upon the Muslim world, the kingdom has banned Muhammad's work over
some creedal issues. Because the Saudi government subsidizes the publication and distribution of so many
translations, the ban has in effect made Asad's translation both expensive and difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, it
remains one of the best translations available, both in terms of its comprehensible English and generally
knowledgeable annotations.

Al-Qur'an, A Contemporary Translation. By Ahmed 'Ali.

Other translations have bucked the Saudi orthodoxy. Ahmad 'Ali, noted Pakistani poet and diplomat, has put
aside the sometimes archaic prose of Yusuf 'Ali and Marmaduke Pickthall in order to present the Qur'an in
contemporary English.[52] While 'Ali writes that he seeks to present "a translation, not an interpretation,
theological or otherwise,"[53] he, like Muhammad 'Ali, seeks to downplay any report that may seem far-
fetched, and in so doing, denies certain Biblical, Midrashic, and Talmudic antecedents. In dealing, for example,
with the Qur'anic version of Moses's anger at the Jews for worshipping the golden calf, he translates the 'aqtulu
anfusakum[54] as "kill your pride"[55] rather than the literal "kill yourselves" which is how it also appears in

33
Exodus 32:27. The Qur'anic retelling and reliance on the Biblical narrative to demonstrate the seriousness of
idol worship is thus lost.

'Ali also seeks to downplay Christian parallels within the Qur'an. He translates Jesus's speech in 3:49 as, "I will
fashion the state of destiny out of mire for you, and breathe (a new spirit) into it, and (you) will rise by the will
of God." The literal translation is, "I will fashion from you, from clay, the likeness of a bird, and will breathe
unto it; and by God's will it will fly." 'Ali's footnote does not acknowledge that the Qur'anic view parallels the
Gospel of Thomas. These departures from the literal portrayal of events from the Hebrew Bible and New
Testament are important because they might lead lay readers to miss the Qur'anic imperative to seek the history
of the prophets from the earlier scriptures.[56] The influence of its flaws may be short-lived, though. Despite its
accessibility to non-Muslim and academic readers due to its recent Princeton University Press publication,
many Muslim scholars have criticized the translation because of the liberties it takes with the text.[57] Future
editions are unlikely.

The Qur'an: The First American Version. By Thomas B. Irving.

Just as Ahmad 'Ali sought to produce a contemporary translation, so did Thomas Irving, an American convert
to Islam who changed his name to Ta'lim 'Ali. While Irving provides a useful introduction to the Qur'an, its
language, and previous translation history, his own translation is fundamentally flawed.[58] While seeking to
stick to linguistic accuracy, Irving makes some basic linguistic errors. Arabic words are built from three-letter
roots to which are added prefixes, infixes, suffixes, and vowels, and their context can lead to a wide range of
meanings. For example, Irving translated ahl ad-dhikr both as "people of the reminder" and "people of long
memories" instead of "people of remembrance."[59] In the latter example, he misses the fact that the Qur'an is
referring to Jewish scholars who, based on the Biblical command of zakhor (to remember) were at the time of
Muhammad referred to as "the people of remembrance."[60]

Many Muslims reject the subtitle, "The First American Version," because it sounds too much as if the Qur'an is
being put into a paradigm of the various versions of the Bible—an idea not welcome to Muslim scholars who
feel that multiple versions lead to corruption of the text. The translation has never been in great demand, and
since Irving's death in 2002, there can be no revision; so, it is likely that, without the interest and subsidy from
Islamic institutions, the version will simply be another forgettable effort.

Sectarian Translations

The Holy Qur'an. By Syed V. Mir Ahmed 'Ali.

While the Saudis may seek to monopolize Qur'anic interpretation among the Sunni community, many Shi'ites
reject their annotation. Syed V. Mir Ahmed 'Ali, an Indian scholar of Arabic and Persian, has produced a
translation that has become the standard Shi'ite translation.[61] The copious instructions on Shi'ite doctrine and
ritual observances ensure that the audience remains almost exclusively Shi'ite. Mir Ahmed 'Ali's translation
relies strongly on the commentary of his spiritual advisor, Ayatollah Mirza Mahdi Pooya Yazdi, an Iranian
scholar noted for his focus on mysticism. While the latest 2002 version is marred by typographical errors, more
serious for the general reader is its heavy sectarian bias and its disparagement of several figures that are revered
by Sunni Muslims. Yazdi states in his introduction, for example, that neither of the first two caliphs was an
authority on the Qur'an and that there are "authentic evidences of their ignorance of it."[62] The ayatollah also
makes the dubious claim that Zaid bin Thabit, deemed by many to be Muhammad's scribe, had no "academic"
qualifications for the compiling of the Quran.[63]

34
Stylistically, too, the most recent edition is unwieldy for the general reader. The translation is published in
Arabic reading style, so that the pages are arranged from right to left; the first page therefore appears as the last
page. This peculiarity, combined with the ungainliness and heaviness of the large tome, makes Mir Ahmed
'Ali's work more suited for mosque ritual reading than scholarly consultation. Yet, the translation carries
gravitas that the previous Shi'ite rendition[64] did not have, since it is written, as the term 'Syed' (or sayyid)
indicates, by a descendant of Muhammad and because it includes commentary by one of the highest-ranking
authorities in contemporary Shi'ism. A paperback edition, printed in the more conventional left-right format, is
widely found in Shi'ite institutions in North America.[65]

The Noble Qur'an: A New Rendering of Its Meaning in English. By Abdalhaqq Bewley and Aisha Bewley.

The Shi'ites have their translation, and so, too, do the Sufis.[66] The creedal bias of the Abdalhaqq and Aisha
Bewleys' Sufi-inspired work is evident in the translators' preface: "Acknowledging the complete impossibility
of adequately conveying the meanings of the Qur'an in English or indeed in any other language, Allah, may He
be exalted, chose pure, classical Arabic as the linguistic vehicle for His final Revelation to mankind because of
its unique capacity of retaining and conveying great depth of meaning in a multi-faceted way which is beyond
the scope of any other language, particularly in the debased form which they have arrived in at the time in
which we live."[67] This creedal statement is not supported by the Qur'an, which holds that the revelation was
in Arabic simply because, had it been in another language, the Arabs would have questioned why Muhammad,
who was Arab, was issuing them a revelation in a foreign tongue.[68] For all this obvious bias on the part of the
translators, the work is in excellent, readable English, rendered in a manner that is neither flowery nor prosaic.
The translators seem to have fulfilled their "main objective in presenting this new rendering: to allow the
meaning of the original, as far as possible, to come straight through."[69] The lack of footnotes allows the
reader to see the text as it is, and despite the creedal issue mentioned at the beginning of this analysis, there is
little evidence of sectarian bias in the actual translation. Because of their Sufi leanings, the translators are not
likely to be endorsed by the mainstream Islamic religious trusts and most definitely not by the Saudi religious
foundations. The result is that an excellent work will most probably remain expensive and unavailable at most
libraries and mosques.

Falling Short

An Interpretation of the Qur'an. By Majid Fakhry.

Many new translations seek to improve upon past translations. Sometimes they fall short. This is the case with
Majid Fakhry's translation.[70] A professor emeritus of philosophy at the American University of Beirut,
Fakhry seeks to present the Qur'an in comprehensible English, correcting "the errors or lapses" of previous
translations.[71] For someone versed in Islamic philosophy, and therefore presumably aware of the focus on the
linguistic uniqueness of the Qur'an, Fakhry's prosaic rendition never comes close to communicating to the
reader the powerful rhetoric of Islam's main document. His inattention to verb structure results, as noted by one
reviewer in an academic journal, in the "tendency to translate an active Arabic verb into an English passive and
vice versa. This undercuts both theological clarity and rhetorical effectiveness."[72] While the publisher
claimed that Al-Azhar University had approved the translation, the facsimile Arabic document included with
the book simply notes that "there is nothing in the translation that goes counter to the Islamic Faith, and that
there is no objection to its printing and distribution."[73] This is an appropriate formula for any book containing
Qur'anic verse and does not confer special status. Since this work does not contribute in any specific way to
what is already available in a crowded market, Fakhry's work will lack staying power. Its absence in mosques
indicates its lack of status among Muslims. The unflattering academic reviews[74] also indicate that, although
produced by a Western university press, it is likely to be overlooked by the academic world as well.
35
The Qur'an, A New Translation. By M.A.S. Abdel-Haleem.

The most recent mass-market attempt to publish an English translation of the Qur'an is the result of a seven-
year effort by a University of London professor.[75] Consistent with his traditional Egyptian training, M.A.S.
Abdel-Haleem has memorized the Qur'an. As a believer, he writes an introduction to his work that reflects the
age-old Muslim tradition, and therefore, simply reports the Muslim stories without any question as to their
reliability. He feels that Gabriel instructed Muhammad on how to design the final corpus and that there are
indeed "records" to show that there were twenty-two scribes for writing the text of the document.[76]
Considering that the translator is a professor of Islamic studies at a secular university and ought to be aware of
the haziness of early Islamic history, he should have adopted a more cautious approach to presenting such
information as fact. Revisionist theories advanced by John Wansbrough, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, and
others would not have commanded scholarly attention if the reports that Abdel-Haleem seeks to pass as reliable
were indeed so.[77]

He does provide an excellent analysis of the context of certain verses and points out a fact that is still unknown
to many scholars: that the terms Islam and Muslim in the Qur'an refer not to the reified constructs of later Islam
but to devotion to God, and that as such, earlier prophets are described as Muslim.[78] The translator makes it
clear that he intends to "go further than previous works in accuracy, clarity, flow, and currency of
language."[79] The preciseness of English is certainly commendable, but there are problems that show that
Abdel-Haleem has incorporated his doctrinal bias into his translation. As Fazlur Rahman, former professor of
Islamic Studies at University of Chicago, has shown, the Qur'an contains no evidence of the corpus-soul
dualism of later Islam, and so the word nafs as used in the Qur'an is not representative of "soul" as understood
in Greek philosophy, Christianity, or post-Biblical Judaism.[80] Yet, Abdel-Haleem translates nafs as "soul"
throughout his work.[81] By comparison, the Bewleys render the word in the more linguistically correct
"self."[82]

Footnotes and commentary are kept to an absolute minimum, supplied only when there is absolute need. An
excellent example is where in rendering the word ummi as "unlettered," Abdel-Haleem provides a note to show
that it could also be translated as "gentile."[83] This allowance for difference of opinion is particularly
noteworthy since most traditional Muslim approaches do not wish to consider the "gentile" interpretation,
although in the context of the entire Qur'an, that certainly seems the more correct version.

The Abdel-Haleem translation comes without accompanying Arabic text. This can actually be a positive factor
since it allows Muslims to take this version anywhere without having to worry about ritual protections for a
sacred document that the Arabic version would mandate. The lack of footnotes and commentary promote
research and a reading of the actual text.

Noteworthy also is the fact that throughout, the translator renders the Arabic Allah as God, an astute choice,
since the question of why many Muslims refuse to use the word God as a functional translation has created the
misconception for many that Muslims worship a different deity than the Judeo-Christian creator. Abdel-Haleem
has done a good job. If any Qur'anic English-language translation might stand to compete with the Saudi-
financed translations, this Oxford University Press version is it.

Nevertheless, the field remains open for future attempts to reflect the true meaning of the Qur'an because this
mandates not only translation but also a better understanding of context. The revisionist works of scholars such
as John Wansbrough, Michael Cook, Patricia Crone, Christoph Luxenberg, Gerd-Rudiger Puin, and Andrew
Rippin, while opposed by many, indicate that there is much that is unclear about the early history and

36
interpretation of the Qur'an. Their theories about such key elements as the influence of contemporary politics
should be addressed in any work seeking to elucidate Islam's main document.[84]

Conclusion

Even for native Arabic speakers, the Qur'an is a difficult document. Its archaic language and verse structure are
difficult hurdles to cross. Translation only accentuates the complexity. The fact that translators and theologians
have, over time, lost much of the Judeo-Christian cultural references rife in the Qur'an is just one more
impediment.

Medieval Muslim scholars sought to abandon consideration of the Jewish and Christian testaments as sources
of understanding the Qur'an; they largely succeeded. Most religious authorities in Islamic countries, particularly
in Saudi Arabia and Iran, oppose any attempt to reinterpret the Qur'an without relying on medieval scholarship.
For most Muslims unaware of the evolution of Islamic scholarship, the Qur'an is immutable and uncreated,
even though the Qur'an never makes such a proclamation, and theologians reached such a conclusion only after
much debate. Immutability means that the seventh century values of some Qur'anic verses, rather than being
placed in their seventh century Arabian context, are portrayed as the eternal divine mandate, giving rise, for
example, to an argument that females must inherit half as much as males. The failure of Muslim scholars to
place the Qur'an into historical or spatial context has lead to generalizations that have harmed Islam, a trend
accentuated by the fact that most Quranic translators are now Muslims. Such a failure facilitates the use of the
Qur'an by governments that support chauvinism and incite hate and by terrorists such as those who brought
down the World Trade Centers.

In order to make itself acceptable to a world torn by Islamist terrorism, Islam faces more than just the hurdle of
a proper English translation of its main document. Until Muslims learn to question the reliability of the Muslim
oral traditions, or divorce themselves from medieval exegetical constructs, they will be living in a world much
apart from the Judeo-Christian entity that has known reformation and enlightenment. Perhaps this is the reason
why, for most academics, the translation of choice still seems to be that of Arthur Arberry.

The urge among many translators—especially now that many adhere to the religion itself—is to produce a
functional and relatively accurate English rendition. Many of these believers fail to take an academic approach
to the history and the Judeo-Christian references in Islam's main document. Polished English prose should not
substitute for poor scholarship. In addition, sectarian differences within Islam have undercut any Muslim
consensus on a translated version. Increasingly, it looks like the quest for the perfect rendition will be endless.

Khaleel Mohammed is an assistant professor in the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State
University.

[1] This is based several verses of the Qur'an, among them, Qur. 15:9, 26:195, 97:1.
[2] Mahmoud Ayoub, The Awesome News (Hiawatha, Iowa: Cedar Graphics, 1997), p. xi.
[3] Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam (New York: Random House, 2004), p. 5.
[4] Qur. 5:33.
[5] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 37a.
[6] Qur. 16:103: "We know well that they say, 'A mortal teaches him.' But the language of the one to whom
they allude is foreign, and this is the clear Arabic tongue." Abrahamian teachings could come only from
Christianity or Judaism. Because the local Christian community spoke Arabic and the local Jewish community
Judeo-Arabic, then contemporary context would suggest a teacher with a foreign tongue to be Jewish.
[7] Qur. 16:43, 21:7; Khaleel Mohammed, "The Identity of the Qur'an's Ahl al-Dhikr," in Andrew Rippin and
37
Khaleel Mohammed, eds., Coming to Terms with the Qur'an (Montreal: McGill University Press, forthcoming),
pp. 39-54.
[8] See Gordon Newby, "Tafsir Israiliyaat," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Dec. 1980, pp. 685-
97.
[9] See M.J Kister, "Haddithu 'an Bani Israil wa la Haraja: A Study of an Early Tradition," Israel Oriental
Studies, 2 (1972): 215-39.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 194, Alim CD, English Translation. Hadith refers to oral reports attributed to
Muhammad.
[12] Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1971), pp. 2, 131.
[13] Closing the door on Jewish sources did not prevent adaptation of Christian traditions.
[14] Abdur Rahim Kidwai, "Translating the Untranslatable: A Survey of English Translations of the Qur'an,"
Muslim World Book Review, Summer 1987, pp. 66-71.
[15] George Sale, The Koran Commonly Called the Al-Koran of Mohammed (New York: W. L. Allison Co,
1880), p. x.
[16] Ibid.; John Rodwell, The Koran—Translated from the Arabic (London: J.M. Dent & Co., 1909); Edward
Palmer, The Qur'an (Clarendon: Oxford Press, 1880); Sir William Muir, The Coran (London: Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1878).
[17] Sale, The Koran Commonly Called the Al-Koran of Mohammed, pp. vii-xii.
[18] Arthur Arberry, The Koran Interpreted (New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1955), p. 11.
[19] Sale, The Koran Commonly Called the Al-Koran of Mohammed, p. xi.
[20] Thomas B. Irving, The Qur'an: First American Version (Battleboro, Vt.: Amana Books, 1985) p. xxii.
[21] Kidwai, "Translating the Untranslatable," pp. 66-71.
[22] A follower of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (d. 1908), who claimed to be the reviver of Islam. Mainstream Islam
opposed his beliefs, and his sect bifurcated into the Qadiani and Lahori subgroups after his death. His followers
are severely persecuted in Pakistan, which has declared them as non-Muslims.
[23] Muhammad 'Ali, The Holy Qur'an (Columbus: Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore Inc, 1991).
[24] For example, "Reviews of the English Translation of the Holy Quran with Commentary," Ahmadiyya
Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore Inc. U.S.A., accessed Feb. 17, 2005.
[25] Qur. 2:60.
[26] Exodus 17:1-6.
[27] Muhammad 'Ali, The Holy Qur'an, sura 72:1.
[28] Qur. 3:46.
[29] Muhammad 'Ali, The Holy Qur'an, sura 3.
[30] Dublin, Ohio: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore Inc. U.S.A., 2002, redesigned, with expanded
index.
[31] Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), s.v. "Pickthall."
[32] Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (Hyderabad: Hyderabad
Government Press, 1930).
[33] An honorific title given to the ruler of Hyderabad in British India.
[34] Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, p. vii.
[35] Qur. 17: 60.
[36] Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, p. 208.
[37] Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, p. 24.
[38] Yusuf 'Ali, The Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary (Lahore: 1934-37).
[39] A.R. Kidwai, "Abdullah Yusuf Ali's Views on the Qur'anic Eschatology," Muslim World League Journal,
Feb. 1985, pp. 14-7.
[40] "L.A. Schools Review Donated Korans, Citing Derogatory Commentary," Magazine of the American
38
Library Association, Feb. 11, 2002.
[41] Muhammad Taqi al-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan, The Noble Qur'an in the English
Language: A Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir with Comments from Sahih al-
Bukhari (Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers, 1996).
[42] Ibid., pp. 5-6; Steven Schwartz presents a scathing review, "Rewriting the Koran," Weekly Standard, Sept.
27, 2004.
[43] Qur. 1: 7; Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an in the English Language, p. 10.
[44] Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an in the English Language, p. 10.
[45] Qur. 5:21.
[46] Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an in the English Language, p. 1181.
[47] Qur. 3:42-57; 19:16-36.
[48] Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qur'an (Gibraltar: Andalus Press, 1980).
[49] Qur. 37:100; Asad, The Message of the Qur'an, p. 688.
[50] The change from Isaac to Ishmael was not due to Qur'anic directive but rather the efforts of later
interpretations. See, Reuven Firestone, "Abraham's Son as the Intended Sacrifice: Issues in Qur'anic Exegesis,"
Journal of Semitic Studies, 1(1989): 95-132.
[51] A term meaning "predecessors" and applied to the ideology that seeks to recreate a lifestyle and world
based on the practice of the earliest Muslims.
[52] Ahmed 'Ali, The Qur'an: A Contemporary Translation (Karachi: Akrash Printing, 1984).
[53] Ibid, p. 8.
[54] Qur. 2:54.
[55] Ahmed 'Ali, The Qur'an: A Contemporary Translation, p. 17.
[56] Qur. 10:94, 16:43, 21:7.
[57] See, for example, Kidwai, "English Translations of the Qur'an," Anti-Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, Oct.
2000.
[58] Irving, The Qur'an: The First American Version (Battleboro, Vt.: Amana Books, 1985).
[59] Qur. 16:43, 21:7; ibid., pp. 140, 171.
[60] Mohammed, "The Identity of the Qur'an's Ahl al-Dhikr," pp. 39-54.
[61] Syed V. Mir Ahmed 'Ali, The Holy Qur'an, Arabic Text with English Translation and Commentary.
Special Notes from Ayatullah Mahdi Pooya Yazdi (New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., 1988).
[62] Ibid., p. 30a-b.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Muhammad Shakir, Holy Qur'an (New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an Inc., 1987). This translation draws
heavily—and without acknowledgement—on the work of Marmaduke Pickthall.
[65] New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an Inc., 1988.
[66] AbdalHaqq Bewley and Aisha Bewley, The Noble Qur'an: A New Rendering of Its Meaning in English
(Norwich: Bookwork, 1999).
[67] Bewley and Bewley, The Noble Qur'an, p. v.
[68] Qur. 41:44.
[69] Bewley and Bewley, The Noble Qur'an, p. iii.
[70] Majid Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Qur'an (New York: New York University Press, 2002).
[71] Ibid., p. 4.
[72] A.H. Johns, "Review of an Interpretation of the Qur'an," Middle East Studies Association Bulletin, June
2004, pp. 83-4.
[73] Ibid.
[74] Ibid. See also Andrew Rippin, "Review of Two Translations of the Qu'ran," H-Mideast-Medieval, Dec.
2004.
[75] M.A.S. Abdel-Haleem, The Qur'an, A New Translation (New York: Oxford University Press 2004).
39
[76] Ibid., pp. xvi-xvii.
[77] John Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1978); Patricia
Crone and Michael Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1976); Michael Cook, The Koran: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
[78] Abdel-Haleem, The Qur'an, A New Translation, p. xxiv.
[79] Ibid., p. xxix.
[80] Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur'an (Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1994), p. 112.
[81] Abdel-Haleem, The Qur'an, A New Translation, p. 50.
[82] Bewley and Bewley, The Noble Qur'an, p. 68.
[83] Abdel-Haleem, The Qur'an, A New Translation, p. 105, note a.
[84] Christoph Luxenberg, Die Syro-aramaishe Lesart des Koran (Berlin: Das Arabische Buch, 2000); Andrew
Rippin, ed. Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur'an (Oxford and New York: Clarendon
and Oxford University Presses, 1988). For Puin's views and findings, see Toby Lester, "What Is Koran?"
Atlantic Monthly, Jan 1999, pp. 43-56.

author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

40